FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1799440433> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1799440433 abstract "Background Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, costly, and difficult to treat disorder that impairs health‐related quality of life and work productivity. Evidence‐based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide guidance on the effects of acupuncture for IBS because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous and methodologically unsound trials. Objectives The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for treating IBS. Search methods MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino‐Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and RCTs that evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment, in adults with IBS were included. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We extracted data for the outcomes overall IBS symptom severity and health‐related quality of life. For dichotomous data (e.g. the IBS Adequate Relief Question), we calculated a pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for substantial improvement in symptom severity after treatment. For continuous data (e.g. the IBS Severity Scoring System), we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI in post‐treatment scores between groups. Main results Seventeen RCTs (1806 participants) were included. Five RCTs compared acupuncture versus sham acupuncture. The risk of bias in these studies was low. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham (placebo) acupuncture for symptom severity (SMD ‐0.11, 95% CI ‐0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs; 281 patients) or quality of life (SMD = ‐0.03, 95% CI ‐0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs; 253 patients). Sensitivity analyses based on study quality did not change the results. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes in the sham controlled trials was moderate due to sparse data. The risk of bias in the four Chinese language comparative effectiveness trials that compared acupuncture with drug treatment was high due to lack of blinding. The risk of bias in the other studies that did not use a sham control was high due to lack of blinding or inadequate methods used for randomization and allocation concealment or both. Acupuncture was significantly more effective than pharmacological therapy and no specific treatment. Eighty‐four per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 63% of patients in the pharmacological treatment group (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.45; 5 studies, 449 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to a high risk of bias (no blinding) and sparse data. Sixty‐three per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 34% of patients in the no specific therapy group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.79; 2 studies, 181 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.27; 2 studies; 181 patients) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.26; 1 study; 100 patients). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was significantly better than the other treatment alone. Ninety‐three per cent of patients in the adjuvant acupuncture group improved compared to 79% of patients who received Chinese medicine alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33; 4 studies; 466 patients). There was one adverse event (i.e. acupuncture syncope) associated with acupuncture in the 9 trials that reported this outcome, although relatively small sample sizes limit the usefulness of these safety data. Authors' conclusions Sham‐controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control for IBS symptom severity or IBS‐related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from two antispasmodic drugs (pinaverium bromide and trimebutine maleate), both of which have been shown to provide a modest benefit for IBS. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients’ preferences for acupuncture or greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drug therapy." @default.
• W1799440433 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1799440433 creator A5011609454 @default.
• W1799440433 creator A5015198590 @default.
• W1799440433 creator A5044913796 @default.
• W1799440433 creator A5049567539 @default.
• W1799440433 creator A5050344464 @default.
• W1799440433 creator A5070203468 @default.
• W1799440433 creator A5083346216 @default.
• W1799440433 date "2012-05-16" @default.
• W1799440433 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W1799440433 title "Acupuncture for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome" @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1155142528 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W116834197 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1480584925 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1483988529 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1532990492 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1587086507 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1641007866 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1971562218 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1976980195 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1987870092 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1990925727 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1991669450 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1996868202 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W1998159103 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2002324192 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2003509332 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2006750191 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2007446342 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2009519968 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2011357382 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2012834177 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2022830174 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2030180893 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2042491129 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2049952239 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2051618216 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2064201279 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2065019547 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2068114187 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2070426225 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2072261927 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2074190081 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2082239211 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2084722119 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2086972635 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2089065773 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2093420688 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2093700943 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2093872011 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2095505246 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2095870207 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2096023882 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2104744094 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2109586110 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2121082147 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2123494660 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2130565446 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2132771991 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2138201488 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2146589073 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2149900760 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2149976534 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2150323969 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2159988048 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2160767876 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2160795579 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2161153207 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2163240427 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2165010366 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2393219434 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2767793280 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W2916827875 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W4235902263 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W4240875076 @default.
• W1799440433 cites W4247564530 @default.
• W1799440433 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005111.pub3" @default.
• W1799440433 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3718572" @default.
• W1799440433 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22592702" @default.
• W1799440433 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W1799440433 type Work @default.
• W1799440433 sameAs 1799440433 @default.
• W1799440433 citedByCount "113" @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332012 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332013 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332014 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332015 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332016 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332017 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332018 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332019 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332020 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332021 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332022 @default.
• W1799440433 countsByYear W17994404332023 @default.
• W1799440433 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1799440433 hasAuthorship W1799440433A5011609454 @default.
• W1799440433 hasAuthorship W1799440433A5015198590 @default.

• next